In 1992 Trump told Charlie Rose that he love's getting even with people who are less than 100% loyal to him or, in his view, have wronged him. Vengeance, no matter how long it takes, is as important to Trump as his next breath of air. It's integral to who he is.
I have a relative very much like Trump. His values of right/wrong and good/bad are subjective to his mood at the moment. Family not aligning with his thoughts Dejour are labeled as insane.
Not a hard bar to clear, to be honest. I can't for the life of me, imagine how any Democratic strategist thinks it's a good idea to put Walz, Harris, or Biden out there giving speeches. These people are exhibit A as to why Trump won. If they want to win in the future, they need new faces.
Sadly, when the newness wears, I fear Pope Leo will be the present target of snarky comments, unfortunately. Folks don't like the fine- line between " humanity is the solid foundation of all virtues", as quoted by Dr. Carl Jung moons ago, and bad manners.
Sooner, maybe later, Pres Trump will meet his match or even get bamboozled on a day he never slept the night before- hence all the 2am 'truth social' updates.
John, how do you compare Watergate to the alleged coverup of Biden’s cognitive health? As more information comes out, this seems real serious. Should there be Congressional hearings to investigate this?
Here’s a new question: The plane gift was a mistake. But would it make a difference if Qatar followed the same process as France giving the US the Statue of Liberty?
As a moderate independent centrist, I take issue with the claim that Hegseth is dangerously unqualified for his position of secretary of defense. Is he a civilian? Check. Is he separated at lest seven years from the service? Check. Is he a media target for scandals? Obviously. Has been been involved in recent scandals? It appears so. I don’t have to be a republican to know that. I don’t have to like him, but he meets the basic qualifications for the job.
You're talking about eligibility. I'm talking about qualifications, in its most basic term.
qualified: "having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like."
Example: I too am eligible to be U.S. Defense Secretary or U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Does that mean I'm qualified for either job? Hell no.
Thanks—I’m interested in how you distinguish qualifications against eligibility, as synonyms. It’s a lot like the expression many are called but few are chosen.
The Pentagon is literally the largest organization on Earth. Whomever is in charge of it needs serious high level managerial experience. A good background on Defense policy, foreign policy, budget management, understanding the basics of modern warfare, etc... are the type of qualifications one may seek in a SoD. Or you could just pick a guy that "looks good on TV".
Okay, but I guess the obvious retort is “Says who?” Who gets to decide the unwritten expectations required for the job? We live in a democracy in which the people decide. The formal existing requirements are very simple, as mentioned above. I’d love it if the qualities you mentioned were added to official job requirements for the job Hegseth has, but that hasn’t happened yet. I suspect it hasn’t because folks enjoy the openness of having few if any formal criteria for roles such as this so the debate can be less about rigor and more about appearance.
TL; DR: If common sense really did exist, would we even need government?
Also—When you do a search on what is required to be the president, the congressional website calls these—get this—qualifications of the office of presidency. If qualifications for that office are just a consensus or someone’s opinion, then why does the Congress call the constitutional qualifications using that term? They are “constitutional qualifications.” So says who, here, is knowable. The founding fathers, in that case.
I think I prefer John D’s definitions and will vote for them to be adopted, whenever they come up for a formal vote.
In the case of cabinet positions and Supreme Court justices, the president can nominate a bum off the street if he wants, and a majority of U.S. senators can confirm that bum if they so choose. That doesn't make that bum qualified for the job. It just means the bum now has the job.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with my position. It's pretty straightforward. I'm a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. I want the people whose salaries I pay, and who are supposedly working on my behalf, to be at least minimally qualified to do their job -- especially if that job is incredibly important and consequential.
I’m not disagreeing with your perspective. I’m just suggesting those qualifications be ratified and made formal and official. But I share your belief that we need to raise the bar.
Take the Supreme Court. A law degree and being a judge or clerk would be nice. But by a strict constitutional reading, are these necessary? The founding fathers knew that placing additional requirements for offices in stone would be problematic and that citizens would have to determine ultimately the question of who is qualified to some degree. The problem here is that citizens generally only now elect those who have been chosen to run by PACs before running. And elected officials can massage appointees into confirmation, whomever they see fit. In the past we’ve had popularity contests of generals, military men, lawyers, in some cases scientists or academics (less often). But we don’t complain because we value these other celebrities. If Charlie Chaplin had run, would he have won? Probably not in his time. Reagan at least became governor first. One more thing—Amy Klobuchar did end up winning in her 2012 race, while—get this—her competitor Pete Hegseth, backed by his PACs, did not. But amping up his celebrity factor between 2012 and 2024 made him fit in the eyes of POTUS at least to nominate him.
Again, the difference is eligibility vs. being qualified.
To take Bernie's example: Jesse Watters is eligible to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Does that make him — a guy who's likely never opened a law book, has repeatedly blown off the law in his public statements, and has spent his entire professional career as a political hyper-partisan — qualified to determine the constitutionality of complex legal cases that potentially have a huge impact on American society?
There's an enormous difference between being eligible for a job, and being qualified for one.
If I was in office, I would definitely have people around me that had similar values. Loyalty would be an important part of my decision because those people would share my values.
I owned a bunch of real estate when I was younger and when I prepared a financial statement, the value of my properties is the value as what I would sell them for.
As in values, the property, value is based on the buyer and seller.
If I was in Office, and someone made an untruthful statement about me, I would sue them also, regardless whether they were the press or individual.
>>If I was in office, I would definitely have people around me that had similar values. Loyalty would be an important part of my decision because those people would share my values.
What values? Trump just wants sycophantic adoration - people telling him how great he and his ideas are. That has nothing to do with values.
>>If I was in Office, and someone made an untruthful statement about me, I would sue them also, regardless whether they were the press or individual.
The lawsuit against CBS has nothing to do with an untruthful statement about Trump. It's about the editing of a Kamala Harris interview.
But if you support suing anyone who lies about you, does that mean you support everyone that Trump lies about suing him? Because he lies about people virtually every time he's in front of microphone or keyboard. Should they all sue him?
John... John... John... how can you forget? Trump doesn't need smart or qualified people to head his departments. Why? Because HE is the smartest person in the world - just ask him! All he needs is a cast of loyal lieutenants to follow his brilliant orders, and let the winning begin... See how simple it is?
In 1992 Trump told Charlie Rose that he love's getting even with people who are less than 100% loyal to him or, in his view, have wronged him. Vengeance, no matter how long it takes, is as important to Trump as his next breath of air. It's integral to who he is.
And what a negative personality trait to own- shows some immaturity on a level that is not healthy.
I have a relative very much like Trump. His values of right/wrong and good/bad are subjective to his mood at the moment. Family not aligning with his thoughts Dejour are labeled as insane.
Let's imagine Stephen A Smith or Govenor Tim Waltz run for the presidency. I would go Smith over Waltz every day of the week.
Not a hard bar to clear, to be honest. I can't for the life of me, imagine how any Democratic strategist thinks it's a good idea to put Walz, Harris, or Biden out there giving speeches. These people are exhibit A as to why Trump won. If they want to win in the future, they need new faces.
Sadly, when the newness wears, I fear Pope Leo will be the present target of snarky comments, unfortunately. Folks don't like the fine- line between " humanity is the solid foundation of all virtues", as quoted by Dr. Carl Jung moons ago, and bad manners.
Sooner, maybe later, Pres Trump will meet his match or even get bamboozled on a day he never slept the night before- hence all the 2am 'truth social' updates.
John, how do you compare Watergate to the alleged coverup of Biden’s cognitive health? As more information comes out, this seems real serious. Should there be Congressional hearings to investigate this?
Here’s a new question: The plane gift was a mistake. But would it make a difference if Qatar followed the same process as France giving the US the Statue of Liberty?
As a moderate independent centrist, I take issue with the claim that Hegseth is dangerously unqualified for his position of secretary of defense. Is he a civilian? Check. Is he separated at lest seven years from the service? Check. Is he a media target for scandals? Obviously. Has been been involved in recent scandals? It appears so. I don’t have to be a republican to know that. I don’t have to like him, but he meets the basic qualifications for the job.
You're talking about eligibility. I'm talking about qualifications, in its most basic term.
qualified: "having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like."
Example: I too am eligible to be U.S. Defense Secretary or U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Does that mean I'm qualified for either job? Hell no.
If Hegseth is qualified to be SoD because he served in the military, then I'm qualified to be the CEO of McDonald's because I once had a Big Mac.
Thanks—I’m interested in how you distinguish qualifications against eligibility, as synonyms. It’s a lot like the expression many are called but few are chosen.
eligible: meeting the stipulated requirements, as to participate, compete, or work.
qualified: having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like.
There's my distinction.
The Pentagon is literally the largest organization on Earth. Whomever is in charge of it needs serious high level managerial experience. A good background on Defense policy, foreign policy, budget management, understanding the basics of modern warfare, etc... are the type of qualifications one may seek in a SoD. Or you could just pick a guy that "looks good on TV".
Okay, but I guess the obvious retort is “Says who?” Who gets to decide the unwritten expectations required for the job? We live in a democracy in which the people decide. The formal existing requirements are very simple, as mentioned above. I’d love it if the qualities you mentioned were added to official job requirements for the job Hegseth has, but that hasn’t happened yet. I suspect it hasn’t because folks enjoy the openness of having few if any formal criteria for roles such as this so the debate can be less about rigor and more about appearance.
TL; DR: If common sense really did exist, would we even need government?
Also—When you do a search on what is required to be the president, the congressional website calls these—get this—qualifications of the office of presidency. If qualifications for that office are just a consensus or someone’s opinion, then why does the Congress call the constitutional qualifications using that term? They are “constitutional qualifications.” So says who, here, is knowable. The founding fathers, in that case.
I think I prefer John D’s definitions and will vote for them to be adopted, whenever they come up for a formal vote.
In the case of cabinet positions and Supreme Court justices, the president can nominate a bum off the street if he wants, and a majority of U.S. senators can confirm that bum if they so choose. That doesn't make that bum qualified for the job. It just means the bum now has the job.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with my position. It's pretty straightforward. I'm a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. I want the people whose salaries I pay, and who are supposedly working on my behalf, to be at least minimally qualified to do their job -- especially if that job is incredibly important and consequential.
I’m not disagreeing with your perspective. I’m just suggesting those qualifications be ratified and made formal and official. But I share your belief that we need to raise the bar.
Experience -experience-experience!
Take the Supreme Court. A law degree and being a judge or clerk would be nice. But by a strict constitutional reading, are these necessary? The founding fathers knew that placing additional requirements for offices in stone would be problematic and that citizens would have to determine ultimately the question of who is qualified to some degree. The problem here is that citizens generally only now elect those who have been chosen to run by PACs before running. And elected officials can massage appointees into confirmation, whomever they see fit. In the past we’ve had popularity contests of generals, military men, lawyers, in some cases scientists or academics (less often). But we don’t complain because we value these other celebrities. If Charlie Chaplin had run, would he have won? Probably not in his time. Reagan at least became governor first. One more thing—Amy Klobuchar did end up winning in her 2012 race, while—get this—her competitor Pete Hegseth, backed by his PACs, did not. But amping up his celebrity factor between 2012 and 2024 made him fit in the eyes of POTUS at least to nominate him.
Again, the difference is eligibility vs. being qualified.
To take Bernie's example: Jesse Watters is eligible to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Does that make him — a guy who's likely never opened a law book, has repeatedly blown off the law in his public statements, and has spent his entire professional career as a political hyper-partisan — qualified to determine the constitutionality of complex legal cases that potentially have a huge impact on American society?
There's an enormous difference between being eligible for a job, and being qualified for one.
BERNIE and John, good subject matter.
If I was in office, I would definitely have people around me that had similar values. Loyalty would be an important part of my decision because those people would share my values.
I owned a bunch of real estate when I was younger and when I prepared a financial statement, the value of my properties is the value as what I would sell them for.
As in values, the property, value is based on the buyer and seller.
If I was in Office, and someone made an untruthful statement about me, I would sue them also, regardless whether they were the press or individual.
>>BERNIE and John, good subject matter.
Thanks.
>>If I was in office, I would definitely have people around me that had similar values. Loyalty would be an important part of my decision because those people would share my values.
What values? Trump just wants sycophantic adoration - people telling him how great he and his ideas are. That has nothing to do with values.
>>If I was in Office, and someone made an untruthful statement about me, I would sue them also, regardless whether they were the press or individual.
The lawsuit against CBS has nothing to do with an untruthful statement about Trump. It's about the editing of a Kamala Harris interview.
But if you support suing anyone who lies about you, does that mean you support everyone that Trump lies about suing him? Because he lies about people virtually every time he's in front of microphone or keyboard. Should they all sue him?
John... John... John... how can you forget? Trump doesn't need smart or qualified people to head his departments. Why? Because HE is the smartest person in the world - just ask him! All he needs is a cast of loyal lieutenants to follow his brilliant orders, and let the winning begin... See how simple it is?
Oh, how time-- short time, will tell.